Wednesday, February 06, 2013

Is the EU behind Cameron's gay-marriage conviction?

What a tawdry, inadequate and occasionally unseemly debate. As Dr Timothy Stanley observed, it was less Gladstone v Disraeli; more Claire Raynor v Richard Littlejohn. There were allusions to history, appeals to biology, some mention of theology, but no understanding at all of ontology. The debate was politically driven without regard for mores or morality. Every sincere expression of ethical concern was swept aside with superficial appeals to the relentless march of progress. Every contentious proposition questioning the very notion of equality in this context was muzzled with 'I find that very offensive'. There were no great speeches from either side, and those that happened to be good were permeated with trivia, flippancy or emotive appeals to romance. When Parliament needed to give us meat, they poured out cups of milk; instead of Aquinas we got Mills & Boon.

Take just this single exchange, which touched upon the value of the assurances currently being given about the unintended consequences of redefining marriage:

Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con): During the passage of the Civil Partnership Bill in 2004, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) pointed out to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is sitting next to the right hon. Lady, that that Bill would inevitably lead on to gay marriage. The hon. Gentleman replied:

“The hon. Gentleman is completely mistaken… I do not want same-sex relationships to ape marriage in any sense…because they are different. Although the two share similar elements, they do not have to be identical, so the legal provisions should be distinct.”—[Official Report, 12 October 2004; Vol. 425, c. 228.]
What has changed since then?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda has since celebrated his own civil partnership as a result of that Bill. I am sure that he would have happily invited the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), had he had the chance to do so.

There was Yvette Cooper, flanked fittingly by equality czars Chris Bryant and Harriet Harman, asked a perfectly reasonable question about Labour's very specific assurances that civil partnership would not lead to gay marriage. And she responds with waffle about cake and confetti. Chris Bryant was the minister who gave the assurances: they were written in the cited report. He simply leaned forward, simpering, and patronisingly explained: "The world has moved on."

Well, the world is sure to move on again, such that the assurances we are currently being given may not mean too much even a few years hence. Parliament is presuming to redefine natural law, which is an astonishingly un-conservative pursuit.

The Prime Minister told us a few years ago that he was in favour of gay marriage because he's a Conservative. The problem is that the majority of his party doesn't agreee with him. Indeed, 70 per cent of his own backbenchers don't agree with him. This is not a conservative proposal that can command the majority of either the Parliamentary Conservative Party or the wider Conservative Party membership. Are they all simply wrong?

Gerald Howarth told Parliament that the Government had no mandate to push through a 'massive social and cultural change'. "This is not evolution; it's revolution," proclaimed Edward Leigh, explaining that marriage is 'by its nature a heterosexual union'. But the majority thought otherwise: the Government's case was put far more convincingly with far more conviction by the Opposition Front Bench.

Gay marriage may be a social innovation ‘whose time has come’; it might even be ‘just’, ‘equitable’ and a ‘good idea’. But it is catastrophically bad politics for both David Cameron personally and the Conservative Party generally. Just look at today's headlines: they are not about Conservative triumph or Cameron the-hero-of-gay-equality. They are all about Tory divisions. Contra Francis Maude, same-sex marriage is not a progressive decontamination of the Tory brand; it is a contentious recontamination, destined to alienate thousands of traditional supporters and revive incessant murmurs of ‘Tory splits’.

David Cameron needs to be seen to be concerned, focused and associated with macro policy and the wholly necessary crucial reforms to build a better Britain – we’re talking about the economy, education and welfare. Politically, the Conservative Party needs to be focusing on winning a majority in 2015 (or even sooner) in order to complete the task – we’re talking about winning the Pakistani Muslim vote in Luton; the Indian Sikh vote in Southall, the African-Caribbean Pentecostal vote in Lewisham, and the Roman Catholic vote throughout the North-West. These groups tend to have strongly conservative views on moral issues such as homosexuality, and ‘gay marriage’ is quite simply a step too far.

But if it is not conservative in its inspiration; if it did not appear in the Conservative Party's manifesto or the Coalition agreement; if it was not announced in the Queen's Speech; and if it cannot command majority Conservative support, why now?

His Grace received an email during the debate from UKIP Intelligence (no 'oxymoron' cracks, please). It appears that if Parliament does not 'regularise' its civil-partnership/marriage provisions to accord with an imminent EU diktat, it will be imposed on the UK regardless.

An EU report due to be voted through the EU Parliament this November would see all marriages and civil contracts conducted in any EU country become legally binding in all other member states. Under the Berlinguer Report, a couple who are not permitted to marry in their home country could travel to another member state in order to wed, knowing that on their return home they would have to be regarded as married.

Paragraph 40 of the Report would mean that any member state would have to grant 'all social benefits and other legal effects' such as legal recognition, tax breaks and benefit entitlements to a married couple, even if such a marriage did not exist in their own legal system.

Mr Farage said: "Now we know why David Cameron has launched this highly contentious and disruptive legislation, apparently out of the blue.

"If a couple were to marry in Belgium, Spain, Portugal or Sweden where same-sex marriage is possible, the EU will say that they have to be given the same legal rights in whichever member state they then chose to live – even if that state itself opposes the introduction of same-sex marriage. In essence the Berlinguer Report seeks to establish an EU-wide right to same-sex marriage.

"It's no surprise that the Prime Minister has kept quiet about this, even at the expense of cohesion in his own party. He has a hard enough time trying to force his own backbenchers to swallow both his dedication to keeping Britain in the EU and his wish for the state to interfere in the definiton of marriage. To suggest that the two issues are in fact interconnected would have caused complete uproar."

The full report may be read HERE. If UKIP are right, and this 'Roadmap' to the 'Legislative proposal on mutual recognition of the effects of certain civil status documents' is the real reason Cameron is bringing forward this legislation now, why does the 'Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill' specifically state that such marriages occurring in England or Wales 'will' revert to civil partnerships in Northern Ireland, and 'may' revert to the same in Scotland? Is this just another example of the muddled thinking, incompetence and confusion at the heart of this Government? Is David Cameron really driving this destructive, damaging and divisive legislation through Parliament now in order to avoid a monumental EU/UK conflagration next year during the Euro elections, on the run-up to the 2015 General Election?

Your post begs the question..If UKIP can discover the link between this report and is legal implementation of universality across the EU states by precedent, how on earth did the Conservative European members of parliament miss it?Cameron has done what Blair knew could never be achieved by Labour, SSM and thereby started the funeral march for the body of the soon to be deceased Conservative party...much to the glee of the opposition and it's coalition partners

I hear the gentle tiptoeing of cats escaping out of bags. The truth behind the real agenda of SsM is now out. Thank you Cranmer for this further expose.

Yes of course the EU is behind the "gay" marriage proposals as the trend of their imposed "equality" laws begin to take effect on the UK, with the EU loving Cameron astheir willing dummy.

We can now see perfectly well how the whole homosexual agenda is beginning to fit in with the consequent destruction and mayhem on "family values" which Cameron hypocritcally vowed to protect.

Anyone interested in assessing the impact of SSM on public life should investigate the outcomes, as for example in Canada.SSM is deliberately designed to impact most forcefully in three spheres, namely, human rights (of free speech, association and conscience), then parental rights in public education, and then autonomy of religious intstitutions.Marriage itself, as is all too obvious will be degraded, disfigured, and rendered all but meaningless unless its unique Christian status as a heterosexual union is upheld.

Blofield:"our post begs the question..If UKIP can discover the link between this report and is legal implementation of universality across the EU states by precedent, how on earth did the Conservative European members of parliament miss it?"

The answer is simple. Most MEPs may not know anything at all about it, or if they did would find it too daunting to probe further.

Much of the legislation, as typical of all EU verbal vomit is so complex, hidden in obscure legalese, and generally hostile to any normal reading that it would be a formidable task to decipher, let alone unravel, clear meaning.That is all deliberate.

Richard North on the EU Referendum Blog did the necessary research on the EU angle, and one glance at his post a day or so ago will be sufficient to prove my (or rather his) point. Graham

The policy refered to by UKIP is not the driving force behind the redefinition of the legal institution of marriage. That driving force is the concept of Gender.

But the EU does play a role in redefining the legal institution of marriage. The whole horrific sleight of hand relies on multi-layered legal mechanisms working in opposition to create a schism between the real world and the legal world. In our case those mechanisms are National law and the European Convention on Human Rights.

National law gives a legal definition of marriage. The superior mechanism (ECHR) does not say what a marriage is, but instead protects the right to form the relationship of marriage, and the compound right to found a family. When an inferior mechanism (our National law) opts for a legal definition of marriage that does not accord with the physical reality of parenthood, the compound right to found a family stays in place at the level of the superior legal mechanism. Because the two mechanisms are now in a state of disharmony, they have between them converted the family unti into a purely legal concept that denies the physical reality of biology. In the eyes of the law, nobody is any longer physically related to anybody. Our relationships are legal only.

The EU, of course, encourgages its members to redefine their legal definition of marriage, knowing full well that the new definition will still be married to the old context: the right to found a family.

One can't believe everything one hears, but last night on LBC radio Peter Tachell was being interviewed and said,1. He managed to confront Boris (2 years ago?) in front of the cameras about ssm - Boris huffed and puffed and then agreed they had to do something about it - and this suddenly made ssm acceptable in the Conservative Party;2. Tachell and friends organised some sort of demonstration outside Party HQ which acutely embarrassed Cameron.3. So Cameron invited Tachell, Osborne and May to a meeting, where between them Tachell got the assurance there would be change; 4. In the mean while Tachell was taking the issue to Europe Courts, so the matter would be forced on the government anyway.

This was the gist of the conversation on LBC as I remember it.

The question many have been asking for a while has been, 'where is this drive for change coming from?' - for which there has no clear answer.

The point Ernst was making is that if UKIP, with limited resources compared to the mighty CCHQ, can establish a correlation, how on earth did the conservative euro mp's and it's mechanism, miss it. Or did they? Bit treasonous, as they are supposed to be working for us and state any future legislation they are aware of that would impact on the UK and its governance.

Wonderfully put! I thought the debate was pretty rubbish. They were talking at crossed-purposes. One side was talking about equality, the other side was talking about the nature of marriage. Had we had a proper, national discussion on the nature of marriage first, the debate on equality would have been more intelligent. But that's Dave for you. Anyway, to think such a change went through on such a shocking debate shows the poverty of our political life.

Secondly, they didn't vote for equal marriage anyway. There are so many exemptions for gays in the legislation, that what's left is neither equal nor marriage.

If the UKIP report is true, it would also go a long way to explaining the much vaunted 'Referendum' in/out offer being delayed for years. By then the Euro-termites will have destroyed the foundations of our national identity & sucked us into their pit.So who does one vote for in 2015, (Presuming we will have an election) The opposition benches carried the SSM bill through, pray that it founders on the rock of the Lords. That August, much maligned body that Labour have been trying to get rid of for years. The reason for which now becomes clearer. So they IMO are out of the running. The Weasel Lib-Dems who have proved by ditching their promise to students about grants, that they will sell out to the highest bidder for a chance to sit in the sunshine for a term. Or a weakly led Tory party whose leader will mislead the country to cement his position of power. (Perhaps future generations will find his remains beneath a car park in Whitehall?).Or maybe a Coalition, under a very apt Rainbow flag of Red, Yellow & Blue.Or UKIP?.

I'm not surprised that part of the the motivation for this awful legislation might be the possible imposition of the "EuroMarriage". This is exactly the kind of drivel the EU likes to spend its time on instead of debating real issues.

However, I still think that Cameron sees himself as some kind of latter-day Wilberforce liberating gays from the terrible oppresion of not being able to call their civil partnership "marriage".

If this had been a truly important issue then the quality of debate in the commons yesterday would have weighty and less drivelous. The argument of "progress" is wearing thin. Progress might include repairing the economy, caring for the sick and elderly, and helping those with genuine needs. it does not merely mean something different from before.

For libertarians, "progress" often means the removal social barriers that prevent us from indulging ourselves in selfish ways, like when a child dreams of robbing a sweet shop.

The gay community did not call for gay mariage until they realised they hadn't got it, like when a child suddenly realises his friend has something he hasn't, even though he neither needs nor wants it. Then the likes of Lady Tatchell started having hissy fits and lobbying the Government to give them a version of marriage that suits nobody except people of their sexual persuasion.

I write as an EU sceptic who was too young to vote in the 1970s. After the recent EU referendum "promise" I noted the way that Conservative EU-sceptics rallied round their party, whilst UKIP remained, er, sceptical. I have been wondering which of these is the right way to be thinking, and am now decided. Given Cameron's track record, I am on the sceptical side over the likelihood of the promise being delivered. There is also so much from the EU side that can still come in during the meantime to erode British sovereignty further still.

And then we move on to the marriage debate. I cannot see beyond the scripture quoted by Andrew Selous MP (Gen 2 plus 2x in the Gospels by Jesus and once in the epistles) - "a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife."

His Grace has already highlighted the disingenuous Government document where the concepts of "myth" and "reality" are turned on their heads. The link now being revealed to the EU even in this (thanks again to UKIP) makes worrying sense.

Whilst I applaud the stand of the mainly Conservative MPs voting against the 2nd reading, the leadership and overall direction of the party on important social matters is just too similar to Labour and the Lib Dems.

People with a moral conscience in any traditional sense are being systematically disenfranchised, and long-standing foundations of stable society are under attack in an unprecedented way - including, it would appear, from a Conservative government!

Since it doesn't now seem to make much difference whether you vote Lab, Lib or Con, I am inclined to give my support to UKIP.

However we may be astonished by the sleuthing abilities of ukip and the failure by them to share this info or the failure by the conservatives to pick up on it, is anyone with any clout going to share it now with the press and with mps?

However we may be astonished by the sleuthing abilities of ukip and the failure by them to share this info or the failure by the conservatives to pick up on it, is anyone with any clout going to share it now with the press and with mps?

Your Grace,The triviata may have held sway yesterday and the opposition may seem to have gained ground. However, God has an army and we need to hold up the arms of our champion so that Gods army may take the ground and have the victory. But where is the champion who can hold forth and command the battle ground of the media with conviction?BTW I did not hear anyone say that the militant LBGT group were not interested in having marriage, they are more interested in their continued destruction of the family.

Interestingly this subject came up at work today and the level of fear (not an overstatement) that accompanied its discussion was remarkable. In an office of fairly ordinary, educated people each person who expressed an opinion (either in favour of or 'confused') strenuously declared their general support for all things gay – an unrequested and unnecessary preface to their opinion, offered to the room as if in fear that anyone should think them not entirely 'on side'.

Not to put too fine a point on it I suspect that some of them were lying – scared to speak out and offer a dissenting opinion. And this in a little office in the middle of the countryside.

This is all the more reason to doubt the sincerity of Cameron's promise of an In or Out referendum on our membership of the EU.

Of course, in the rather unlikely event that he is still prime minister after the next general election he will have to go through the motions of re-negotiating our membership and will probably manage to persuade the other members to make a very ostentatious offer of rather meaningless concessions which can be blown up out of all proportion by spin-doctors. At the same time we can expect all sorts of doom-laden predictions about what will happen if we leave. With the help of the BBC and most of the press plus the EU and the leaders of all member countries plus the American President the pro-EU campaign would probably gain a narrow victory - ending British independence for good.

It was notable that Cameron missed the debate yesterday to have a meeting with the US vice-president. The US government has already expressed its desire for Britain to stay in the EU. Surely any British politician with even a single patriotic bone in his/her body would, even if he/she supports the EU, would tell the Americans very firmly that it is absolutely none of their business!

As well as the points you made, there is no adultery for gay couples (unequally for heterosexual couples). This means it isn't marriage, since marriage requires faithfulness. What happens if, in the name of equality a heterosexual challenges this inequality?

In 1920 the Soviets abolished the family. In 2013 the Conservatives, discovering holding onto water disappears from their grip to have nothing left to hold, rally to the cry of "Progress" too. The vaccuous, souless party.

You make a good observation about the way anybody prefaces any opinion on homosexuality with a statement of support for gay rights. I see this everywhere and it is accompanied by the usual British terror of saying the "wrong" thing.

This is part of the reason there is no real debate on the issue (present company excepted). The LBGT community therefore have the rest of us over a barrel (excuse me a moment while I clear that terrible image from my mind).

Gays, on the other hand, are not nearly so reserved about calling someone a homophobic bigot just because they aren't a paid-up member of Stonewall. I'm not advocating we copy their childish name-calling of course, just that we need to be more assertive in expressing our views.

Wouldn't it be a joy if the law changed and a heterosexual spouse took action to assert his right to commit adultery and get away with it?

Or alternatively (as others have pointed out), as this law (unequally) does not require consummation, two straight people of the same sex could marry each other, for the benefits of being married without in any way being part of a married relationship. Could be a useful way of getting illegal immigrants into the country.

It's not equal and it's not marriage. But it does look like a time-bomb for proper marriage.

Today's Daily Mail has an article about the Conservative Party Winter Ball at the Hurlingham Club in west London. David Cameron made a speech about how the Tories had modernised and were no longer the party of privilege.

Attendance at the ball cost £400 a head; champagne, £100 a bottle. One supporter at the ball paid £100,000 for a painting of David Cameron.

The PM's statements on privilege seem to be just as convincing as his statements on marriage and on the European Union.

full equality cannot exist in cases where there is intrinsic difference

The exemptions for homosexual couples in this Bill rather suggest there is intrinsic difference (as do many other elements, such as procreation). But if homosexual relationships are not equal to heterosexual relationships in the relevant sense, then gay 'marriage' is itself a form of unjust privilege.

It's not equal and it's not marriage (sorry, I'm rather enjoying that sentence).

Not had a national debate? It's been near constantly covered for months and months, not least because of the media campaigns by the Roman Catholic Church and fringe evangelical groups. Is there anything new that could possibly be said? I'll be mightily relieved when it's all done and dusted and things are back to normal again.

There was no prior debate about the nature of marriage. Why we have it, what we want from it, and what it is. As soon as the word 'gay' was put in front of the word 'marriage' no serious discussion was possible. This was evident from yesterday's debate in which two completely discussions took place in the same room.

DanJ0 said...Not had a national debate? It's been near constantly covered for months and months, not least because of the media campaigns by the Roman Catholic Church and fringe evangelical groups.

What about mainstream evangelical groups or, in your view, do all evangelical groups belong to the "fringe." Slavery would not have been abolished until many years later if it had not been for evangelicals.

However the views of evangelicals, whether mainstream or fringe, had very little publicity in the press or the TV. Roman Catholics did not receive much more. In contrast the "Gay rights" viewpoint received endless publicity and I do not recall a advocate of gay "marriage" being asked searching questions by any interviewer.

Ars: "Nice to see that DanJ0 has turned up to tell everyone how wrong they are."

You clearly needed someone to direct your ire and frustration at so I just posted a bland comment to let you know someone gay was now available for you. It must be difficult to imagine you have a god on your side yet watch the majority of the population and over two thirds of our MPs not roll over in the face of your demands. Oh well.

I say fellows, that Pink news is a hateful site, with posts from some of the vilest people you can imagine. However, you would have thought some form of benderfest would be going on there today. Couldn’t be more wrong – They are homing in on Liberal types who voted against the bill !

Unhappy people who hate themselves for their condition, and spew out hate to anyone who doesn’t crumble before them and support homosexual expectations to the letter. One is actually sympathetic to ALL MPs who have been lobbied by these types. It must have been bloody awful for them…

And now, today’s news from the late Terry Higgins,

“The leading HIV and sexual health charity is launching the Update Your Status campaign to remind gay and bisexual men in London that – if they have had unprotected anal sex with a new or casual partner– they should not delay getting tested for HIV. The Trust cautions that within the gay community, up to half of new infections come from men who have themselves been recently infected and don’t know it.”

Ah, gay marriage. A well deserved accolade to acknowledge the romance of it all. The true and enduring love and commitment to that special one in their life. And then to settle down, and steal children up for adoption, like the best of child kidnappers. Thus to commence to play happy families with these innocents, who have done no harm to anybody, but just needed a safe secure environment to grow and thrive. Child abuse every bit as bad as Savile, in the Inspector’s book.

One recalls reading that Tatchel was / is complaining about being ‘frozen out’ from Government meetings on ‘equal rights’ issues for LGBT. Not his words, but from people around him. Persona non gratia - a curious way to treat the saintly man, what ! Of course, if what you say is true, then it fits. It wouldn’t be the first time a situation of “I agree to everything you want, but I never want to see you again” has happened in a political context, don’t you know…

The simplest of legislation would restore the supremacy of British law and use that restoration to take back our historic fishing limits in accordance with international law: 200 miles, or to the median line.

Withdrawal from the Common Fisheries Policy, which cannot in fact be done without restoring the supremacy of our Parliament, is at least implicit Labour policy already. But you are not allowed to know that. It was also David Davis's position when he stood for Leader of the Conservative Party. But you were not allowed that, either.

David Cameron is no liar. He stood for Leader and then for Prime Minister as a socially ultraliberal slave of the EU. He serves both as Leader and as Prime Minister as a socially ultraliberal slave of the EU. Everyone who voted for him, he is giving you exactly what you voted for.

Inspector: "They are homing in on Liberal types who voted against the bill !"

I voted Tory at the last election and the (Christian) candidate won it from New Labour. It's a pretty marginal seat. They voted against the bill yesterday and they won't get my vote next time around now. I noticed that Zac Goldsmith voted for the bill but I suppose he's a golden boy hoping to move on in Cameron's ranks.

DanJ0: The inspector was reporting on facts as noted when he paid a visit to the Pink News site. Rather him than me, he probably needs a stiff drink after every visit.

So you voted Tory, wonderful. You must be very proud today. But would you vote Tory again? Probably not, as now the Tories are seen as the party which split over gay marriage. So even after all this, DC still loses the gay vote.

Matt, I won't be voting for my current MP again based on their vote last night. That said I've never voted Labour in my life, despite its gay-friendly politics. I voted explicitly last time on the basis that I wanted New Labour out of office, primarily to stop them pursuing their communitarian politics and intruding any further on civil liberties with its 'Database State' ideas. Henry Porter was my hero during the previous administration.

It would be wrong to describe Pink News as a filthy site. Not at all, but it’s the readers comments section you need to avoid. The literary equivalent of faecal matter mixed with lube, no less. Rather disturbing that this ‘token of love’ can soon be expected in the marriage suite of hotels. One takes his hat off to the laundry staff. Previous experience working in nonce prisons would come in handy there, what !

From the Times: "Sir Roger Gale, a Conservative and one of the Bill’s fiercest critics, is pressing for a new “civil union” to replace both register office marriages and civil partnerships, leaving marriage per se as a matter for churches rather than the state."

I'd accept that as most people would call them all "marriages" anyway. Of course, we could do the other option and make all marriages "civil unions" and leave Churches to issue "marriage blessings". At least with the second option, it wouldn't look like churches somehow own marriage.

David Lammy's comment equating opponents of homosexuality to "racists" show that he is eiyher very ill-edicated (I suspect not) or he is simply TRYING to be as offensive as possible. Basically, the level of debate on this subject is either you are a paid-up member of Stonewall or a homophobic bigot. Frankly, I don't give a toss what I'm called because this is not an issue of words. It is an issue of many politicians choosing to thumb their noses at long-established and successful public institutions in favour of chasing the latest political gimmick - in this case it is enforced equality

I would call fixing the nations economy "progess". I would call improving social cohesion "progress", as I would an increase in respect and care for the vulnerable. Tearing down something good because of some delusional idea of equality is not progress

"Sir Roger Gale, a Conservative and one of the Bill’s fiercest critics, is pressing for a new “civil union” to replace both register office marriages and civil partnerships, leaving marriage per se as a matter for churches rather than the state."

Is Sir Roger Gale pressing for that? In his speech yesterday he said he was opposed to it. I think he said it would be a better solution than the Bill, which does not really make equal marriage anyway.

Roy: "Why on earth not? Your parents were not a same-sex couple, nor you grandparents, nor your great grandparents, nor your great great grandparents ... Get the idea? By pretending that a same-sex relationship is marriage you are insulting all your ancestors."

There may come a time when scientists develop the technique of merging the DNA of same sex couples to produce children for these unholy unions. What arguments would a secular godless world accept against this perversion of nature?

DanJ0 said...Roy: "Why on earth not? Your parents were not a same-sex couple, nor you grandparents, nor your great grandparents, nor your great great grandparents ... Get the idea? By pretending that a same-sex relationship is marriage you are insulting all your ancestors."

You're being absurd.

No, I am just being logical. It is utterly absurd to not to recognise that heterosexual relationships are fundamentally different from homosexual ones.

Ah DanJ0. One is reminded of the joke about a new mother being told her infant is a homosexual boy, and her offering to trade him for a Eskimo baby that had been hanging around the maternity unit for a couple of weeks, no one knowing how he got there. (...This joke infuriated the humourless Carl.. who is humourless...).

I don't think we need to go back quite that far. Human societies, including those that until relatively recent times were described as "primitive", are very different from those of animals. Some people do seem to admire bonobos (or pygmy chimpanzees as they used to be called) because of their attitude to sex - anything goes among bonobos, apparently - but even bonobos owe their existence to heterosexuality.

Today, it's fairer than the one where gay people are imprisoned, perhaps for life, or hanged from cranes simply for having consenting sex with an adult member of their own sex ... as you refused to deny you were supporting here not that long ago after posting some rather sinister opinions.

"In 2004, just 37 Conservatives voted against civil partnerships at Second Reading. I think there was every reason, at the outset, to believe either a reform to civil partnerships or a form of gay marriage could have been introduced for which the Conservative opposition was less than 37. Surely with good handling opposition could have been less than 50. But the debate spiralled out of control, going crazy on both sides, and by the time Cameron's team realised what terrible trouble they were in, they were too committed to withdraw. A measure they probably intended mainly for political reasons – as part of the detoxification strategy – but also perhaps partly to help secure the place of homosexuals in society has ended up stirring up enormous antipathy against homosexuals, of a sort I've not seen for twenty years"

Andrew Lilico, Conservative Home

If I were homosexual I would be really worried about the last sentence.

Roy: "Some people do seem to admire bonobos (or pygmy chimpanzees as they used to be called) because of their attitude to sex - anything goes among bonobos, apparently - but even bonobos owe their existence to heterosexuality."

When I said your attitude to same-sex marriage was an insult to all your ancestors I did not mean to insult you. I merely pointed out that you, and other advocates of gay "marriage" are lacking in what Confucius called filial piety.

Despite that your parents doubtless love you, and your grandparents too, if they are still around. Although I agree most of the time with the Inspector General I thought his comments about you were a bit unkind. However outspokenness is part of his debating style. He expresses his opinions very clearly and forcefully. Therefore, even if you felt hurt it might have been better not to rise to the bait.

Roy: "Therefore, even if you felt hurt it might have been better not to rise to the bait."

He never hurts me. How could he? However, I have a long-standing strategy with both Dodo and the Inspector. Whenever they launch an attack, which they do multiple times pretty much daily, I metaphorically grab them by the throat, shove their heads down the nearest bog, and pull the chain.

It's like the Israeli strategy. The Palestinians know that they will always be clobbed by helicopter gunships and the like every time they launch some missiles, however ineffective they are, but they do it anyway just to show resistance. I expect the Israelis do it to maintain a hard-nosed reputation and their integrity.

Your Grace, one can only applaud the courage of Conservative dissenters who will now enjoy the opprobrium of their more 'enlightened' assenting colleagues, on both sides of the House. One can imagined the hissed insult of 'homophobe'.

The UKIP revelation will be a potential catalyst for some assenters to feel remorse. In any event, the dissenting 175 will feel a certain cohesion and espirit de corps that may embolden them to challenge Cameron again, and again...

To DanJ0: DanJ0 said...Babies aren't sexual subjects, Inspector. Except perhaps to never-married, very homophobic Roman Catholic men in their 50s who live alone and appear unable to maintain adult relationships.

That comment is staggeringly unfair. The Inspector has, on previous posts, described his life in a very clear and humble way, to you, his greatest critic. He has never married, he has explained that. He is not homophobic, he just has the traditional Christian attitude of turning away from sin. He is very capable, and does, maintain "adult relationships". What is your problem? You are personally attacking him while ignoring the rational arguments which he presents to you. I do not defend everything which the Inspector says, but I do feel on this issue, you are being very unfair indeed.

The homosexual lobby groups are mainly of a left wing and liberal leaning that has been steeped in the modern day Marxist principles dressed up in a modern day language of political correctness, modernism, atheist-assuming social policies that they are too young and uneducated in history to know the depth of what it all really means, hence they think they are fighting for progress and equality but how far is equality being taken? They don't seem to have been taught anything about realistic or harmonising or where the boundaries should be, governed by the laws of nature. Equality is being used as the highest expression of ethics instead of what Jesus taught in the 'Sermon on the Mount' with The Beatitudes.

It's the Frankfurt school of philosophy's aim to purposefully perpetuate animosity in order to destabilise our western Christian culture for a political end that most people especially the young politicians today cannot recognise or even imagine.

The main thrust of the EU is towards the collective ever closer union and the flag tells us this with the inclusion of the hammer and sickle (destroy and reap) at the top of it. The EU harbours a lot of the old German Marxist/Nietzsche thinking.

Katie @ 11:27 worth looking into.

Our only hope is on enough of the old boys in the HoL to save us again. They'll know when some thing's not right.

InspectorAs a taxi driver in Gibraltar once said,"Franco 'e no good"Frnnco bankrupted Spain not once but twice.Those that are married to a foreign wife(from outside the EU) experience discrimination in the form of immigration restrictions.There is no equality.As regards racism-the Chinese are a bit more tolerant when it comes to homosexuality than whites.Sing jia yu ee (Happy Chinese New Year)

Roy: "If that is so I am sorry to hear it. I miss my grandparents and uncles and aunts and although I loved them I wish I had shown it more while they were still alive."

I expect that's how most oeople feel. My father died in his sleep of kidney and heart problems, aged 72. A relief to him, I think. My mother died of bowel cancer, aged 57. That was traumatic for everyone but at least there was plenty of time to talk. Dodo knows all this as it's been mentioned before, and in similar circumstances. I expect this time he'll claim that Jesus wants him to attack me based on my relationship with each of my dead parents, along the hoary old lines of a stifling mother and distant father being the cause of homosexuality or something. He's been keen to do that for a while, having googled all over the place off site trying to find personal informationabout me. They were divorced, you see, though I saw my father pretty much daily as he lived just around the corner.

The government can't marry people because the government doesn't marry people. Only people marry people. And they do so through sexual union.

The only licit relationship of government to marriage is the registration of their marriages through law.

A "marriage" between a pair of men or women can never be physically completed - consummated - and therefore it can only ever be a legal fiction. It doesn't exist. Even the law itself recognises that same-sex marriage is a legal fiction, because the sexual component remains for husbands and wives, but not for two people of the same sex. The law has put a lie on the statutes, and has been forced to admit it.

In a free society, should we be forced to go along with a lie the politicians have invented, and put on the statutes? A lie is still a lie even if it is a law. Maybe you should be concerned with why politicians think that the state marries people, rather than that people marry one another. You should be concerned that the state is on the precipice of coercing people into co-operating with it's lies.

Even the government has acknowledged that "same-sex marriage" is a legal fiction. The proposed law's exemption of same-sex couples from all the things that make marriage distinct from any other human relationship, from the things that actually make marriage a physical marriage, means that even it acknowledges that marriage is the sexual union of a man and a woman. That truth is literally inescapable.

If same-sex marriage was just a self-acknowledged legal fiction that we could ignore, that would be one thing. It would make the job of educating our children (remember them?) much harder, but not much more. But it isn't that simple, because marriage, being the very thing that brings people into existence in an ordered fashion, is woven into the very fabric of society, and a false legal definition sets up conflicts everywhere, as lies tend to do.

"Dodo knows all this as it's been mentioned before, and in similar circumstances."

That is a bare faced lie. I knew your mother died, I actually thought younger, and your father too. I knew nothing of the circumstances. And I apologised about your mother at the time and offered my condolences. I had no idea your parents divorced.

Will you now use these tragedies to score points? Shame on you. Reflect on the appropriateness of this.

" ... having googled all over the place off site trying to find personal information about me."

Another bare faced lie! We've covered this before. Evidence? So I guessed you lived in a one bedroomed flat.

Honestly, playing the 'victim' and seeking sympathy, isn't an effective strategy.

Here's an offer. You stop sneering at Christianity, making derogatory comments about Jesus Christ and stop wilfully manipulating bloggers into angry and ill-considered statements and I'll leave you be.

Dodo, stop flapping and squawking. You've already admitted in the past that you've done it. You've already tried to make something of my relationship with my dead father too. Your "family - *issues*" thing above is just an extension of that. There's nothing you will not do in your relentless pursuit of trouble, I think.

Dodo, don't be absurd. You do not own the blog nor do you appear to be particularly welcome yourself. As such, why would I be prepared to accept your personal censoring of my comments contrary to the blog owner's Bottom Line to the right?

Roy: "I lost my father and, more recently, a brother to cancer and I think of them both every day. Therefore I understand how you feel and you have my sympathy."

I'm very conscious that David B is struggling with a treatment for this at the moment. I actually think about that quite a lot, though we rarely exchange words. It's a nasty disease for everyone, patients and family alike.

I don't think about them every day but there are lots of times where their absence is poignant. After their deaths, I was and still am acutely aware of the significance of personality and what it means to lose one, any one.

It was my personal censoring at all. Just a suggestion about greater restraint on both our parts for the sake of avoiding future petty and personal exchanges - on both our parts.

I don't think the blog owner's bottom line includes license to call a person a sexually repressed homosexual, accusing someone of being a dirty old man for corresponding with you, personally insulting a woman for using an internet dating site, displaying prejudices about age .... Need I go on?

You can, of course, now list, for the "silent reader", all of my failings which I am aware of.

Well, so its no deal then. You know I will continue to challenge your bad mouthing of the Catholic Church and your misrepresentations of it, and Christianity as well other faiths. I will also join in any discussions I see fit.

Dodo: "I don't think the blog owner's bottom line includes license to call a person [...]"

I could post the original cause for each of those but I'll just focus in particular on the one in this thread which I roll out every time he writes something like "Who wants to bring up anything like you ?" in regard to parenting someone who is homosexual. I may tackle the online dating thing later.

He spent months and months working along side you trying to bully me off this site with homophobic abuse. He was also the first to label me a paedophile here simply because I'm gay. There have been a couple more since so I'm familiar with it now and I just shrug. Hence, I'm content to bat that one straight back, especially given his own peculiar circumstances. Of course, that stuff gets lost and it just looks like I'm being unnecessarily mean.

Dodo: "Just a suggestion about greater restraint on both our parts for the sake of avoiding future petty and personal exchanges - on both our parts."

The restraint was well in place at this end before and through Christmas when the blog owner threatened to close the place down. However, you persisted in trying to cause trouble one on one, despite my repeated warnings to desist. You are demonstrably not at all interested in avoiding trouble. You thrive on it. Feed on it. Lap it up and gorge yourself on it. Then pretend you're simply doing it for Jesus. You beggar belief, quite literally.

What is so curious about DanJ0 is that he finds it difficult to accept that individuals live alone. He seems to be demanding “Well, where is the sex then. Where are you hiding it. Out with it now !”. As we know, sex plays a big part in homosexual men’s lives, and in their closed world, one can only assume they ascribe similar to heterosexual types. He really does seem to believe that a man on his own in his early 50s must be a repressed homosexual. Damn bizarre !

We must ask ourselves a question. If he has this so very wrong, what else is barking about his ethos. Reading him over time, I don’t think we can rule anything out, at least not safely, what !

Manfarang. Spain was stuffed at the end of a nasty civil war. Financially and morally. Such was the viciousness involved, the winner would be a hard liner, whichever side that was. So consider this if Franco hadn’t pulled it off. A Spanish-Soviet pact, 1939 ? Why not, we had a NAZI-Soviet pact. NAZI Germany with at her flanks Communist countries. The NAZIs invade Red Spain. After all, they’d already been helping the loser for 3 years with active help.

The NAZIs would have been the heroes of the hour, of the decade, cheered on by a relieved British Empire and France ! The communist menace stopped in it’s tracks. Instead of Britons dressing their children up in sailors uniforms, they’d dress them as little NAZIs…{GULP}

With Racism, one feels the concept has been subject to Marxist ideology for nearly 100 years now. The idea that the peoples of the world are somehow identical in all matters comes from the same school of thought that despises the rich man in his house while there are still poor men in their flats. Unless the rich man is a Kommissar, quite naturally !!

So we are still waiting for the real reason why Mr Chris Bryant has changed his mind since 2004's debate on the Civil Partnerships. Being now in one himself is not a proper answer. Did he lie at the time on the 12th Oct 04 just to get the CP through? I suspect so. Seems he's full of s***t and not to be trusted. So what next the legalisation of Paedophilia, I mean on the homosexual agenda (list of things to do) is the age of consent being dropped to 14. The slippery slope to debauchery has begun with the redefinition of marriage. I will always think of Chris Bryant as the poof in the pants on Gaydar. What is he doing for the people in his constituency of the Rhondda? A poor area not many homosexuals lots of single mothers and families that are out of work and struggling, not much enterprise a very challenging area. Allowing the homosexuals and lesbians there to “marry” is not going to do anything to help them put food on the table and encourage enterprise is it? It's not going to help stop crime and binge drinking there, all it's going to do is confuse them.

I wish the mps questioning this idiocy had questioned out those who were all in favour of it properly. They should have had to justify what they mean by things moving on? Yes the world moves on but why do they think this is acceptable and how would this benefit humanity, where are they heading with it and how do they see it practised in reality?

Inspector: "He really does seem to believe that a man on his own in his early 50s must be a repressed homosexual."

No. As I say time and again, it's your extreme homophobic attitude in combination with all that which sounds the bell, old fruit. It's a clique, Ted Haggard style. You're obsessed with it. You raise the subject all the time. You even hang around Pink News, despite claiming to be sickened by it all. My gaydar pings like a pingy thing whenever you mince onto the set.

I fear your pingy thing is on the blink. There is no way that the Inspector is gay. Sorry old fruit. By the way I have also been visiting Pink News recently to try to get insight into why we have to have marriage redefined. I discovered that a bare backed porn star has just died of AIDS. So I'm none the wiser.

DanJ0, you little treasure. Cranmer wouldn’t be the same without you. One is sure the Archbishop recognises this, which is why your uncouth behaviour is generally tolerated by him.

Now, lets see. ‘Homophobic’ – you know that this word now applies to anyone who objects to the slightest of gay whims. ‘Obsession’ – If you mean the Inspector is obsessed with challenging the rot you come out with while waving the rainbow flag, then yes, put him down as obsessed.

One is barred by Pink News, and you know it. Now, that’s hardly as a result of ‘repressed homosexuality’ is it ? More like the Inspector is intelligence gathering with his know your enemy strategy, don’t you think. How can you effectively challenge what these blighters believe in if you don’t know what it is they come out with...

William, you might, as indeed any of us would, wonder why the death (...by suicide no less, at the age of 45...) of a gay bareback porn star would even feature in Pink News.

This was all revealed to the Inspector at the last porn star death they featured. A man of 38, from ‘complications arising from the treatment of HIV’. You see, the characters who contribute to the readers comments section will have lost a personal friend. This is a result of the astonishing appetite for hard core gay porn those in the active gay scene possess. Such is the deranged nature of their postings about sex, one does believe these creatures watch the stuff EVERY night.

Dodo: "And so an attempt at restoring civilised dialogue prompts a series of abuses towards the Inspector and myself with a couple of others put on hold!"

You haven't tried to restore civilised dialogue. You've tried to install censorship by you, despite the Bottom Line on the right, as though this is your blog. If you and your sidekick truly want civilised dialogue then simply lead by example yourselves. You had the opportunity before and through Christmas and you couldn't manage it, reverting instead to type by being a relentless pest.

DanJ0, if you can’t substantiate your accusation that the Inspector labelled you a paedophile just because you are gay, then issue a retraction. It’s the honourable thing to do. (...Oh Lord, one wonders if we are in comprehensive school “new word for the day” territory...)

InspectorHave you ever considered a career in teaching? The sector is encouraging mature candidates to come forward. My own career started in the probation service as a mature entrant. Nowadays its all 'professional qualifications' during which time candidate are introduced to the 'new world view'.

With that solid, Christian common sense of yours, and direct talking, the young people of today would most certainly benefit from your influence. Perhaps a unit for 'troubled' young people who cannot accept boundaries because of emotional confusion due to chaotic childhoods.

You have acquired the patience of a saint recently and one salutes you.

DanJ0, you clearly have no idea of the word ‘honour’, but don’t despair that man. There is a parliament full of people like you...

Dodo. One of the Inspector’s brothers is an MSC Computer Science. Obtained thirty years ago when his type were paid in gold. Nowadays, in between contracts, he signs on as a supply teacher of mathematics to secondary school pupils, which he makes a good living at considering it’s merely interim. From his description of todays classrooms, you really don’t want to go into teaching. He survives because it’s only temporary and he’s as hard a bastard as the Inspector...

I dunno, but the Welsh have fantastic singing voices and can bellow out a good tune. Isn't one the nation's greatest Hymns Welsh? "Guide me o thou great... " (and I say that as someone who is not of your faith).

Maybe your brother should consider seeking employment in a Catholic School. In my experience, they encourage more civilised behaviours. Let's face it, covering for teachers on long term sick leave, probably in failing schools with a liberal ethos, will not provide any sense of satisfaction.

You can do it Inspector! Perhaps in a special unit for the disruptive types.

I think Chris Bryant drives straight past it too! Its pride certainly needs to be restored.

South Wales certainly is the land of song and the performing arts, nothing better than the male voice choir.

The family here is very much supported and the Welsh in the South seem to have a love of children maybe it was the Italian influence after the influx of them during the second world war. What those families need is hope and a vision for the future of how they are going to climb out of poverty not homosexual “marriage”.

David Cameron revealed today that redefining marriage had given him a brilliant idea. Why not redefine the definition of 'beef' to include all other types of meat?

This truly inclusive idea will solve the present horsemeat scandal. Further, anyone still found complaining about the adulteration of food will be branded a bigot. Butchers will therefore be banned from selling 'beef' which comes solely from cows. Cameron said he had had quite enough of what he called "equiniphobia".

A spokesperson for Finedus said they were absolutely delighted with the Prime Minister's initiative and suggested that we had moved into a new era of food equality.

It is now hoped that a redefinition of 'hallal' will equally meet with the food industry's approval.

The exemption of same-sex couples from the sexual aspects of legal marriage illustrates a number of things. The first is that the law itself acknowledges both the physical and factual, extra-legal reality of marriage, the physical and factual impossibility of same-sex marriage, and therefore the fact that same-sex marriage is a legal fiction.

The truth is that the state does not marry people, neither do religions, they merely recognise marriages, "in the eyes of the law" and "in the eyes of God", respectively. It is men and women who marry one another by entering into a sexual union with one another. A marriage has two stages, the commitment and the completion. That is all "consummation" means: completion. A marriage between a pair of people of the same sex cannot be completed, it is a logical impossibility. It will forever be a non-marriage - perpetually null. This is something this proposed legislation acknowledges, even as it tries to contradict that fact. It knows that to fail to do so would simply be to deny marriage itself.

The difference between people who support same-sex marriage and those that oppose it, therefore, is not the difference between progressives and bigots, between secularists and religious, between the tolerant and the intolerant, between the kind and the cruel, between people who support equality or oppose it. It is the difference between people who know what is physically impossible and what is physically possible, between fiction and fact, between reality and fantasy.

I do not doubt that many people support same-sex marriage. There may indeed be people who support perpetual sunshine, the abolition of taxes, and all manner of things. But responsible legislators, rather than attempting to legislate the impossible, should be firmly and politely and calmly explaining the just limits of the law and the political. The state is as constrained by reality as anything, or anyone, else.

So, if the state acknowledges the physical and logical impossibly, and therefore the legal fiction of same-sex marriage, then what does it hope to achieve?

About His Grace:

Archbishop Cranmer takes as his inspiration the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby: ‘It’s interesting,’ he observes, ‘that nowadays politicians want to talk about moral issues, and bishops want to talk politics.’ It is the fusion of the two in public life, and the necessity for a wider understanding of their complex symbiosis, which leads His Grace to write on these very sensitive issues.

Cranmer's Law:

"It hath been found by experience that no matter how decent, intelligent or thoughtful the reasoning of a conservative may be, as an argument with a liberal is advanced, the probability of being accused of ‘bigotry’, ‘hatred’ or ‘intolerance’ approaches 1 (100%).”

Follow His Grace on

The cost of His Grace's conviction:

His Grace's bottom line:

Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse. Comments on articles are therefore unmoderated, but do not necessarily reflect the views of Cranmer. Comments that are off-topic, gratuitously offensive, libelous, or otherwise irritating, may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on any thread does not constitute their endorsement by Cranmer; it may simply be that he considers them to be intelligent and erudite contributions to religio-political discourse...or not.

The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning.Dr Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1945-1961

British Conservatism's greatest:

The epithet of 'great' can be applied only to those who were defining leaders who successfully articulated and embodied the Conservatism of their age. They combined in their personal styles, priorities and policies, as Edmund Burke would say, 'a disposition to preserve' with an 'ability to improve'.

I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end good will triumph.Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher LG, OM, PC, FRS.(Prime Minister 1979-1990)

We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton, OM, PC.(Prime Minister 1957-1963)

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.Sir Winston Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can).(Prime Minister 1940-1945, 1951-1955)

I am not struck so much by the diversity of testimony as by the many-sidedness of truth.Stanley Baldwin, 1st Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, KG, PC.(Prime Minister 1923-1924, 1924-1929, 1935-1937)

If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the military, nothing is safe.Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, KG, GCVO, PC.(Prime Minister 1885-1886, 1886-1892, 1895-1902)

I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a Radical to remove all that is bad. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few.Benjamin Disraeli KG, PC, FRS, Earl of Beaconsfield.(Prime Minister 1868, 1874-1880)

Public opinion is a compound of folly, weakness, prejudice, wrong feeling, right feeling, obstinacy, and newspaper paragraphs.Sir Robert Peel, Bt.(Prime Minister 1834-1835, 1841-1846)

I consider the right of election as a public trust, granted not for the benefit of the individual, but for the public good.Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool.(Prime Minister 1812-1827)

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.The Rt Hon. William Pitt, the Younger.(Prime Minister 1783-1801, 1804-1806)